You have a choice. You can drive that change, or you can be swallowed by it.

In a free society, people have liberty to do anything except a few prohibited things.

In a totalitarian society, people have liberty to do nothing except a few permitted things.

In a free society, the people have a black list of things they must not do, and government has a white of a few things it may do.

In Barack Obama’s America, the government has the black list and the people live by a short white list.

You have a choice. You can live in a society where a few things are prohibited but everything else is up to you. Or you can live in a society where you must get permission to do anything.

Yes, the choice is that stark. It’s up to you whether your society is free or controlled.

And voting is not enough. If you want a free society, you must bring others like you to the polls.

We can help you do that.

Saturday, Sunday, and Monday St. Louis Tea Party’s Liberty HQ is open all day. We can provide everything you need to sustain the free society, including a walk list—paper or smartphone—so you can call out others to vote for freedom with you.

Come to 9966 Lin Ferry Dr, St. Louis, MO 63123, at Lindbergh and Tesson Ferry, to control your destiny.

Barack Obama’s performance was not nearly as bad as Romney’s performance was good.

Not good—terrific.

I’m not talking about his politics and policies; I’m talking Romney’s remarkable presence. Here are the four principles of presence that Romney knocked out of the park.

Command of the Facts

When it came to facts—and to how those facts matter to the listeners—Mitt Romney seemed more prepared for the office of President than the President. Every attack by the President was countered, not with excuses or logic, but with numbers, facts, and verifiable statements.

Affable Demeanor

From the moment he stepped onto the stage, Mitt Romney’s body and face reflected a friendly, but determined, man. His eyes danced. He smiled when appropriate, and never scowled. He stood still and straight—“in neutral,” as personal coach Frances Cole Jones describes the position: feet planted, hands at sides, ready to move but disciplined to hold steady.

Romney’s demeanor led people to think: approachable, safe, unguarded, honest, open, and strong.

Eye Contact

When Barack Obama attacked Romney, the President looked down or at Jim Lehrer. When Romney called out Obama, he looked his rival in the eye. While Obama’s eye-aversion looked weasel-like and weak, Romney’s forthrightness looked brave.

The word that Romney’s eye contact conjured: mensch.

Consistency

After 90 minutes, the President looked beaten, exhausted, distracted, and uncomfortable. He stood on one leg, often rocking back and forth like fidgety boy in Sunday School. But Romney’s strength, energy, and determination never waned. Romney never soared, but he never descended.

The word viewers thought about Romney’s consistency: stamina.

Presidential

In every respect, Mitt Romney came across as more presidential than the President himself. He was more in command of facts, he was more likable, he had the wherewithal to look his rival in the eye and maintain all of these qualities consistency.

A genius is someone who can hold contrary concepts simultaneously in mind.

What, then, do we call a person who simultaneously argues two contrary concepts?

How ‘bout “demagogue?”

A few weeks ago, Barack Obama told America’s business owners that they are not responsible for their success. “Someone else built that.”

Today, the same Obama told Mitt Romney that there not many people who consider themselves victims.

Does Mr. Obama believe that people in dire straights are not victims of circumstances? It seems so. Obama’s telling us that if you succeed, it’s because someone else helped you, but if you fail, you fail on your own.

If that is Obama’s meaning, then his idea of cradle-to-grave government dependency would be, simply, immoral. You don’t systematically reward people who repeatedly fail.

I’d like to welcome Mr. Obama to the world of people who believe we are masters of our domains. But we know Mr. Obama is a demagogue, arguing both sides of the same point to secure himself another four years of dictatorial rule.

Barack Obama came to office promising to heal the planet (I didn’t know it was sick), lower the waters, and end war as we knew it “whilst waking on water squirting wine out his ass,” to borrow William S. Burroughs’s anti-Christian blasphemy in Naked Lunch. (Funny. I don’t recall reading about Christians blowing up embassies over that book’s publication.)

Four years later, The One might want to let the waters rise. Maybe they’ll put out the fires in the Middle East.

When Obama took office, the only international hotspots were Afghanistan and Iraq, where allied forces, led by the USA, had Iraq all but tamed. Afghanistan was ready for a surge to bring that conflict into its waning days.

History does not move in a linear progression for long. Events interrupt the best laid plans. This is why I don’t really care much about a candidate’s position on issues of the day, except as guideposts to understanding the candidate’s world view and mindset. The issues that weigh on an office holder are usually very different from the ones he campaigned on. Instead, I want to know why the candidate takes a position. What’s his moral and philosophical reasoning for arriving at a conclusion.

More importantly, we should ask if a candidate has the temperament to deal with crises and the humility to realize that his grand strategy might fall victim to Black Swans.

Barack Obama has proven he lacks the temperament required of the American President. We always knew he was born without humility.